Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

What do you think of this gun control argument

Several things:The Articles of Confederation in Article VI: "...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

They shortened it in the 2nd amendment because everyone knew what it meant...which falls under the "failure to clarify" category.

-------------------

Secondly, The primary purpose of the state militia may well have been to preserve "slave patrols" in the south.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

-------------------

The NRA is an organization created by and supported by gun & ammunition corporations. It is the face of these groups. Since I only own two guns, both shotguns, both inherited, I am not the buyer or constituent or target audience of either the NRA or Gun Companies. The NRA has left moderation behind to be more shrill and more radical because their audience is the person who wants to buy more guns and more ammunition with more and for firepower.

-------------------

So, it comes down to reasonableness and the willingness to have a discussion in good faith. Most of us agree that the "right to bear arm" is not without restrictions. It does not mean we all get to keep chemical and biological weapons in our homes. Most of us agree that we don't need missile systems or tactical nuclear warheads in our basements "just in case."

In good faith, can we discuss where to draw the line and when to call BS BS? While keeping mind that there are groups and companies that make a ton of money off the crazies who want unlimited firepower because the end of the world is near.

-------------------

If you are required to have insurance to own a car just in case there is an accident, why shouldn't you be required to have insurance on your gun just in case there is an accident. Statistically, you are much more likely to survive a car accident than a gun accident.

If there is a national registry of cars and car owners, homes and home owners, telephone & cell phone numbers. property owners, stock owners, why do you think a registration of gun ownership will cause the fall of civilization?

If we have survived the legal requirement to record the transfer of cars, homes and property why do you think recording the transfer of weapons is significantly different?

If a person is on the international No Fly List, why should they be able to buy weapons and explosives anonymously at gun shows or over the internet?

If you buy into the argument that there is no sense in more gun regulation because "it will not stop criminals any way," do you also by into the logic that there should be not regulations of murder because in won't stop murder, or regulations of rape do not stop rape, or regulation of fraud does not stop from or any other set of regulations?

If you buy into the argument that "we already have enough regulations...we just need to enforce the ones we have." Do you also support the full funding of an aggressive groups enforce those laws... like the ATF, and paying for larger prison populations? Or is this an NIMBY issue?

That is a small part of what I do. More than anything I train people to shoot. I help them learn a skill. And the blatant lies are something you agree with because like most rabid antigunners lies are all you have to help prove your point.

Quoting lga1965:

I agree with all of it. You don't because you SELL guns.

Quoting LuvmyAiden:

Another set of arguments without basis in fact. When the antigunners can give me something REAL to debate I will debate. Thus far it's been lies and padded numbers because they have no real basis for an argument here. Gun crime declines every year fairly steadily and cities like Chicago are perfect examples of how gun control is NOT a fix all. 20,000 gun laws on the books and if the antigunners read any of them they MIGHT be educated enough to take part in the discussion. But they don't.

The first link seems legit although I didn't browse the whole site. The second link is an antigun site which means nothing coming from them is seen as fact. When I post facts I use unbiased sources. If I backed up a claim with an NRA link I would be laughed at. Same concept.

For the flat lies, here it goes. With 5 million members the NRA is a rather large organization and acting like he knows the dynamic of the people who are members is bullshit, plain and simple. Yes the Nra gets funds from gun companies but the VAST majority of it's funds are provided by it's members NOT compaines.

He also fails to mention HUGE quantities of gun laws that already limit the 2nd amendment. If he did any research he would understand that gun companies do NOT want to be associated with the crazies and target hunters more aggressively than anything else.

And the stat about surviving a car accident is all well and good except he forgets that you are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun. The registry of cars and homes is FAR different than a registry that could easily let your govt. take those things away. He ignores the fact that disarming a people has the been the precursor to nearly EVERY genocide in history as well.

He acts like you can buy guns with no background check at gun shows or off the interent when you CANNOT. Even a little research proves that so he is being blatantly obtuse there.

Things like murder and rape are illegal so that you can prosecute those who perpetrate those crimes NOT to deter them. Laws do not deter criminals.

I do beleive using the laws we have and funding the ATF enough that it could do it's job would be helpful. However the only true solution is to address what leads to ANY violence in the first place. But instead of addressing the tough issue that would take some real critical thinking we continue to be lazy and simply try to bandaid the problem.

Quoting jessilin0113:

What part is not based in facts? He provided links to some of his assertions.

Quoting LuvmyAiden:

Another set of arguments without basis in fact. When the antigunners can give me something REAL to debate I will debate. Thus far it's been lies and padded numbers because they have no real basis for an argument here. Gun crime declines every year fairly steadily and cities like Chicago are perfect examples of how gun control is NOT a fix all. 20,000 gun laws on the books and if the antigunners read any of them they MIGHT be educated enough to take part in the discussion. But they don't.

Just the wording that the primary purpose of a state militia was intended for "slave patrol" indicates that we need to revamp our current Constitution on The Right to Bear Arms.

The points I've put a red asterisk by, I agree with.

As for "aggressive groups enforce those laws," are you referring to private citizens or actual officials/employees of the local governments?

Quoting jessilin0113:

-------------------

Secondly, The primary purpose of the state militia may well have been to preserve "slave patrols" in the south.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

*If you are required to have insurance to own a car just in case there is an accident, why shouldn't you be required to have insurance on your gun just in case there is an accident. Statistically, you are much more likely to survive a car accident than a gun accident.

*If there is a national registry of cars and car owners, homes and home owners, telephone & cell phone numbers. property owners, stock owners, why do you think a registration of gun ownership will cause the fall of civilization?

*If we have survived the legal requirement to record the transfer of cars, homes and property why do you think recording the transfer of weapons is significantly different?

*If a person is on the international No Fly List, why should they be able to buy weapons and explosives anonymously at gun shows or over the internet?

f you buy into the argument that "we already have enough regulations...we just need to enforce the ones we have." Do you also support the full funding of an aggressive groups enforce those laws... like the ATF, and paying for larger prison populations? Or is this an NIMBY issue?

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.